Am. Med. Sys., LLC v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC
Decision Date | 11 December 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 3D19-1570,3D19-1570 |
Citation | 290 So.3d 548 |
Parties | AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, LLC, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, et al., Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Reed Smith LLP, and Edward M. Mullins, Lisa M. Baird, David J. de Jesus and Christina Olivos, for petitioners.
MSP Recovery Law Firm, and John H. Ruiz, Michael O. Mena, Gino Moreno and Christine M. Lugo, for respondents.
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Andrew R. Kruppa and Amanda E. Preston ; Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., and Joshua D. Lerner, for Ethicon, Inc. and Boston Scientific Corporation, as amici curiae.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, and Kathryn L. Ender, Joelle C. Sharman and Brian S. Goldenberg, for ALN International, Inc. and ALN Implants Chirurgicaux, as amici curiae.
Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.
American Medical Systems, LLC, f/k/a American Medical Systems, Inc., American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Endo Health Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. (collectively "Petitioners"), the defendants below, seek a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's non-final order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint for a pure bill of discovery filed by the plaintiffs below, MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC, and Series PMPI, a Designated Series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC (collectively "Respondents"). Because Petitioners have failed to demonstrate the requisite irreparable harm, we lack jurisdiction to hear, and therefore dismiss, the instant petition. See Villella v. Ansin, 263 So. 3d 823, 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (); Lee v. Condell, 208 So. 3d 253, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; CQB, 2010, LLC v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 177 So. 3d 644, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) () .
On January 22, 2019, Respondents filed an amended complaint for a pure bill of discovery against Petitioners, seeking to compel Petitioners to identify whether certain Medicare beneficiaries were implanted with pelvic mesh products sold by Petitioners, and whose healthcare costs were subsequently paid by a Medicare Advantage Organization. On May 3, 2019, Petitioners moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Respondents had failed to state a valid claim for a pure bill of discovery and that Respondents lacked standing to bring such a claim.1
On July 9, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on Petitioners' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and stated that it was denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss. The hearing transcript reflects that the trial court, in denying the motion, confirmed with the parties that the next step in the proceeding was for Petitioners to answer to the amended complaint; but, at Petitioners' request, the trial court agreed to stay the lower proceeding should Petitioners decide to seek appellate review of its order denying the motion to dismiss. The next day, July 10, 2019, the trial court entered the challenged order denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss. While the order requires Petitioners to answer to Respondents' amended complaint within thirty days, the order does not require Petitioners to produce any discovery material. The order also provides that the case shall be stayed pending resolution of any timely appeal or petition.
On August 9, 2019, Petitioners timely filed the instant petition in this Court seeking certiorari review of the trial court's order denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss. Respondents responded to the petition and, in the same filing, moved to dismiss the petition. Specifically, noting both that the trial court merely ordered Petitioners to answer the amended complaint, and that Petitioners have not yet been ordered to produce any discovery sought therein, Respondents argue that Petitioners cannot demonstrate the requisite irreparable harm that would vest this Court with the jurisdiction to determine whether there has been a departure from the essential requirements of the law.
We agree that Petitioners have not established that the challenged order – merely denying their motion to dismiss – results in the requisite irreparable harm to vest us with jurisdiction, and therefore dismiss the instant petition. See Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ().
We acknowledge that, in limited instances, Florida's appellate courts have exercised jurisdiction and have engaged in certiorari review of non-final orders issued in actions for a pure bill of discovery. Given the dearth of written opinions discussing this Court's jurisdiction to consider non-final orders entered in such cases, we write to distinguish those cases from this case, and to further explain our reasoning for dismissing the instant petition.
In several instances, Florida's appellate courts have engaged in certiorari review – and have made the merits determination of whether the orders depart from the essential requirements of law – where the trial court entered non-final orders both denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss and directing the petitioner to provide the very discovery sought in the underlying complaint for a pure bill of discovery. See Gilbert v. I.W., 105 So. 3d 665, 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (); Lewis v. Weaver, 969 So. 2d 586, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ( ); Kirlin v. Green, 955 So. 2d 28, 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ( ); Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Hegwood, 569 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ( ).
Similarly, Florida's appellate courts have exercised certiorari jurisdiction, and reached the merits of the petition, when the challenged non-final orders in pure bill of discovery cases ordered the petitioning party to produce discovery. See Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ( ); Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Frazier, 696 So. 2d 1369, 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ( ).
As we see it, though, the lower court's non-final orders issued in all these pure bill of discovery actions are akin to the proverbial "cat out of the bag" discovery orders that this Court has found can cause the requisite irreparable harm warranting the exercise of this Court's certiorari jurisdiction. See J.B. v. State, 250 So. 3d 829, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ; Mana v. Cho, 147 So. 3d 1098, 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ; Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). In such instances, should this Court then conclude that the discovery order departs from the essential requirements of the law, this Court will grant the petition and quash the order. See J.B., 250 So. 3d at 834-35 ; Mana, 147 So. 3d at 1100 ; Rousso, 146 So. 3d at 72.
By comparison, because the challenged order in this case requires only that Petitioners file an answer to Respondents' amended complaint – and does not require production of any discovery – Petitioners are unable to establish the requisite irreparable harm for us to exercise certiorari jurisdiction. We, therefore, cannot reach the question of whether the subject order departs from the essential requirements of the law. See Miami-Dade Cty. v. Dade Cty. Police Benevolent Ass'n, 103 So. 3d 236, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ( ).
Petitioners rely principally on two cases – JM Family Enterprises, Inc. v. Freeman, 758 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) and Debt Settlement Administrators, LLC v. Antigua and Barbuda, 950 So. 2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Miami Perfume Junction, Inc. v. Osborne, No. 3D20-1317
...informant may cause such injury if disclosed.")(additional quotation and citation omitted); Am. Med. Sys., LLC v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, 290 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ; Coffey-Garcia v. S. Miami Hosp., Inc., 194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). ...
-
Rav Bah. Ltd. v. Marlin Three, LLC
...opinions in GEICO Casualty Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims, 320 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), and American Medical Systems, LLC v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, 290 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), in support of their argument that a pure bill of discovery remains a valid means of obtaining in......
-
IMC Med. Ctrs., LLC v. Deluca
...simultaneously directs the petitioner to disclose the very discovery sought by the complaint. Am. Med. Sys., LLC v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC , 290 So. 3d 548, 549–51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (explaining that a trial court's non-final order in pure bill of discovery actions may be akin to t......
-
GEICO Cas. Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims
...16, 2020, we stayed the discovery order pending further order of this Court.2 Citing to American Medical Systems, LLC v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, 290 So. 3d 548, 549-50 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), MSP argues that we lack certiorari jurisdiction because, according to MSP, the September 15, 2......